Assessing the Mode of Biblical Interpretation in the Light of African Biblical Hermeneutics: The Case of the Mother-Tongue Biblical Interpretation in Ghana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The structure of the article is good!

The form and the content of the article are good!

The methodology is good! The work is also contextual.

However, there are some minor English mistakes (cf. the attached document)!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The structure of the article is good!

The form and the content of the article are good!

The methodology is good! The work is also contextual.

However, there are some minor English mistakes (cf. the attached document)!

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you for your understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a compelling argument for the place of ABH, and more so, MTBH in scholarship. It'd be so helpful with a possibility of the method taking a main stage in mainline biblical interpretation from a post-colonial perspective if you could provide a deeper clarity of method of the MTBH. This could help both ministers engage in bible study and students and their professors in the classroom. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you for your understanding.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a good paper, which has the potential to be improved and published.

Abstract: It may not be correct to say that the early African Bible translations were ‘rushed’. Christaller and his contemporaries were very senior scholars who did exceptionally careful work, for all the faults we may identify with the advantage of hindsight.

It seems unfortunate that an author writing about African hermeneutics should start by defining hermeneutics on the basis of several non-African authors!

It seems strange in a scholarly paper to refer to the words of Jesus and Ezra as assumed historical fact.

Catholic biblical hermeneutics is noticeably absent.

The article seems vague in not giving any clear examples of MTBH in practice. This is the biggest weakness of the paper.

Structure: Out of 16 pages, 4 pages are basic introduction (which seems a bit much) and 4 pages are actually on MTBH (which seems much too little, since the title tells us this is the whole point of the paper).

The English is good, but there are many errors throughout, which could easily be corrected by a native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you for your understanding and help. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf